Application for condoning delay in filing appeal dismissed due to lack of specific grounds and unsubstantiated claim of paucity of funds. Consequently, the underlying appeal also stands dismissed as time barred.
Application No. 412 of 2018 dismissed; Appeal No. 282 of 2018 dismissed as time barred.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
(Appeal No. 282 of 2018)
(Arising out of S.A. 12 of 2016 in DRT, Cuttack)
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON
15.6.2022
Sk. Alam & Another … Appellants -VsPunjab National Bank
… Respondent
Mr. Nemani Srinivas, Learned Counsel for Appellants
Mr. Debasish Chakrabarti with Ms. Sharmistha Pal, Learned Counsel for Respondent
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
Application No. 412 of 2018
The instant application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Objection filed by Respondent Bank; taken on record.
Heard Learned for both the parties and perused the record.
The impugned judgment is dated 21st November, 2017. The appeal was preferred by the Appellants on 19th July, 2018. It is admitted in para 4 of the application that the Appellants have received copy of the judgment from their Counsel, Mr. Mukherjee, and they were advised to prefer an appeal but for want of means and funds they could not visit their Counsel at Kolkata and hence could not approach this Appellate Tribunal for challenging the impugned order and judgment till May, 2018. Thereafter Mr. Mukherjee, their Counsel, was contacted and the present appeal was preferred by them although a ground for the delay in filing the appeal is taken that at first the Memo of Appeal was printed on white paper that was returned back and thereafter it was prepared in green paper and filed.
Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the Appellants had every intention to file the appeal within the time but were prevented due to the reasons beyond their control.
2
Learned Counsel for Respondent raised objection by stating that the ground taken by the Appellants that they could not visit Kolkata for want of fund could not be substantiated from the material available on record.
It is an admitted fact that the Appellants were in knowledge of the impugned order and judgment dated 21st November, 2017. It is also borne out from the record that the Appellants were advised to prefer an appeal by their Counsel but for not filing the appeal within the time Appellants took a general ground that they could not come down to Kolkata to contact their Counsel due to paucity of fund and means. No doubt, delay can be condoned but at the same time reasons have to be specific. It is settled legal proposition that the Appellant is required to explain day to day delay, it is not the prerogative of the Appellants to make out a general ground and take advantage of it.
In the present case the Appellants were well within the knowledge but they failed to prefer the appeal in time and the grounds taken by them could not be substantiated from the materials available on record. Learned Counsel for Respondent has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru passed in Writ Petition No. 1492 of 2012 (L-MW) dated 12th January, 2022 in the matter of Smt. Surrayya Parveen @ Annapoorna -vs- Labour Officer-cumMinimum Wages Enquiry Authority & Others).
Having considered the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for both the parties, I am of the view that the Appellants failed to make out a case for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal.
Accordingly, the Application, being Application No. 412 of 2018, is dismissed.
Consequently, the appeal, being Appeal No. 282 of 2018, also stands dismissed as time barred.
Pending I.A.s, if any, also stand dismissed, being infructuous.
Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.
Copy of the order be supplied to Appellants and the Respondent Bank and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.
File be consigned to Record room.
(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson
Dated: 15th June, 2022 02/ac
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing the appeal due to lack of funds and inability to visit Kolkata can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Whether the ground of paucity of funds and means is a sufficient explanation for the delay in preferring the appeal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Surrayya Parveen @ Annapoorna -vs- Labour Officer-cum-Minimum Wages Enquiry Authority & OthersReferred¶19
Writ Petition No. 1492 of 2012 (L-MW) dated 12th January, 2022 in the matter of Smt. Surrayya Parveen @ Annapoorna -vs- Labour Officer-cum-Minimum Wages Enquiry
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sk. Alam & Another
Punjab National Bank
Anil Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
